Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-06-29
United states Supreme.Court All.
sIrRcI.

4IIEAL- JURISDIC1IONAI AMOUNT Distinct
CLAIMS CBkDHoE~' BILL.
+. made deed Of assIgnm, nt Of pro-
ItTty 10 ". IN trust to sell it and apply ne
proceed. to tie payment Of hi, debts first
10 G.. for more than 100000, next 10 otb-r
psrsons named. and lastly to hi, other ere
ditsrs generally. :. & CO. flied bill in
equity ~ the United states Circuit Court
against j.. W. a &. to st aside the assign
lncnt a. a fraud Oh creditors. VI filed a
similar bill. DdrndantS answered several
", denying the allegations Of the bill and
prayipg thst il be dismissed with costs. BY
copseit the two bills and petitions Of in
teTvCuiug creditors we're heard together a.
one cause. and. on plcadin.s and proofs,
receiver vas appointed, the assignment de-
cRTed void, aud the ease referred TO the
master, upon whose report final decree
was entered distributing the fund, paying
$G,7jG.22 10 NJ, S3.9i3.2l 10 :. y Co., and
less sun TO each OF tue petinOulng credi-
tors. IION tbls oCCite & a ". appealed
10 the llftu states supreme COur,. Heid,
that the .uii beng by the general credit
tors, on v one Of whose deJi> exceeded
81. 600 ana TIE sole mater ia dispute beng
between The defendants and each plaintiff
as TO the amount 1icl Toe Inter should
cept a. 10 Ibe appeal Of tnr creditor whose
debt eXce,Qs $1,000. ana that as ~ the
othei. TIE appeal -hOuld be dismissed. The
true Ia 2 % distinction, as applied % Gases
like that low LeiOre us, Is sharply brought
out ~ tie recent decisions Of stewart rs.
DuhAam. 1lJ L. ; 81, and Estes rs. Gan
fU, l2l -. lS3, IN each Of which a pre-
icIIed ciCo,tOr for more than $1,000 was
on ole ,iCe and general creditors for less
thab 5000 each we're on the other. 10
St,GsII IS. Durham, the suit baing
biUI- bt-ly ihl general crcditO > az iin,t
The GebICr aud The preferred creditor, 10
whom tie debtOr tad IN de the Conveyance
alleged 10 to fraudulent, aud the li',er
fe' kir 10 affirmative relief the matter IN
OJ.pufe % leiwCeu TIE defendants and eich
If he IlaiulitT. wl> the amount Of the
a IN Il thd rla.uttf; but IN Estes rs.
GLGi,T, lht ,uit ueiDs brought bg the pre-
tIr.u a., dit'r against tue trustee in the
GC,O II - .iE6uiebt by when he WI. pre-
tered, aud the general creditors being
fuuuObCd IN H. defendants, aud them
sels,s a,king 0 affirmative relief, tue INIT
ter tu OIsIUte Has the value of tht deb:
u'ipI,G and o. The property assigned -
tocuIe tic lr' iereuce. HE ca.e at bar /.
dXscily like slew n rs. Durham. Toe suit
j. ~ tie general creditors, only one Of
wt0'C dtbl- amount 10 q, 900. The trus.
t'e ana Tbs preferred creditor appear a.
C,f,I OaHis OnlN, Gle no cross bill, and ask
no affirmative reIIcf; and the decree sets
aioe he fraudulent Conveyance 30 far only
b. II 40 e. The plaintiffs rights. Tue sole
lnstlp n dispute, therefore, is between the
did darts and each plainhH as to tht
smOunt which the latter Shall recover. This
fcsuh. as we have seen, IS In accordance
with long series OF decisions Of this
cSuIt extending over more than bali a CEN
tury. During that period Congress has
Often lfgisiated on tue subject OF our APP
peliaie jurisdiction without changing the
phIHeoOgy Which bad received judicial
construction. The court should not now
Upseiilc rule 20 long established ana re-
roeDized. May %. 1887. Gibson Us. Shut
fCldi. Opinion by Gray, j.